/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14996757]

Are there any books on how we can combine Carl Schmitt's ideas with Austrian School of Economics?

[A҉̶n̵̡ony̶͞m͢ou͞s̴͜ No.14996775]

>>14996757
Authoritarian hellscape? Dystopians

[Anonymous No.14996784]

Reza Negarestani (forthcoming)

[Ano҉͢ǹ̴̕͝ým̷o̷us͞ No.14996788]

>>14996757
Who is she
I wish i was black so she could look at me

[A̸no̴̕n̡͡y͜҉̨m̵oưs No.14996924]

>>14996788
mutt's law

[Anonymous No.14996949]

>>14996775
>>14996788
>>14996924
why the fuck are you shining

[Anonymous No.14996960]

>>14996949
Mi nah know

[A҉no͞ny҉m̵̵͜o͠u͝s No.14996961]

>>14996949
Posted a lot.

>>14996788
In Russia? Go back to >>>/gif/

[A̸no͜n͞ym̷óu͡s̸͠҉̧ No.14996967]

>>14996757
not a book but i have a good idea:
we could surround them both with a lot of dry wood and light it all on fire

[Anonymous No.14996977]

>>14996757
They're incompatible unless you deeply corrupt both of them.

[Á̸͜n̸o҉n̛ym͝óuś͜ No.14996978]

>>14996949
you will be too, now that you've replied to us...

[Anò̕ny̶m̸o͏̸us No.14996979]

>>14996961
Oh hey, it seems to be waning. No “deaths” for covid4chan I guess.

[A̴̛͝noǹỳmou͟s No.14996989]

>>14996977
Go ahead and explain please. Not really into law or economics so I don’t know what you mean.

[A͡͏n̷͞on͜y̵̕mous̢͘҉ No.14996990]

>>14996788
All the nigger cucks are coming out on April 1st

[A̡n҉onym̶̢o̷us̶ No.14997045]

>>14996757
neoconservatism

[A̶n̡͡o̧҉̢ǹ͝ym̀ous̸ No.14997103]

>>14996977
This. Ancaps are fucking retarded, and it's somehow even more incompatible than leftist readings of Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.14997106]

>>14996989
Schmitt is all about nationalizing industries and racism, Austrian economics would likely assert that nationalization of key industries is how you get waste and inefficiency and would hold nothing in support of racism.

[A̸͠n̴͢o͞n̛͠ymo͢u̡̨s No.14997171]

>>14996990
>whitoid cuck

[A͝n̵on̕y͟m҉̵̨̕o҉ưs No.14997203]

[A̧non̴ym̶o̢͞ús No.14997302]

>>14996757
That girl is very pretty. I want to sex her.

[Anonymous No.14997416]

>>14996757
Why do you keep making this shit thread?

There's no compatibilising socialism with Austrianism. This sounds more like a leftie larper ridicule projecting the fact that Austrianism is far beyond your comprehension

[Anonymous No.14997438]

>>14997416
>dude FUCK the government also math isn’t real
yeah it’s a real esoteric system you got there bud

[Anonymous No.14997447]

>>14997416
>Austrianism is far beyond your comprehension
To be fair it is hard to comprehend the thoughts of a retarded person.

[Anonymous No.14997531]

>>14997438
>>14997447
HURRR DURR IT'S RETADED lololol lmao

[Anonymous No.14997539]

>>14997438
>Austrianism means math isn't real
what a dumb negro, can't think up a single reference or argument

[Á̛n̴ony͏͞ḿou̷͝s̴҉ No.14997568]

>>14997416
What does socialism have to do with this?

[Anonymous No.14997586]

>>14997568
Nazism is socialism

[An͝o͡n͡ým̡ǫu̡҉ś͡ No.14997595]

>>14997586
Not really, but continue.

[Anonymous No.14997596]

>>14997586
>socialism is when the state does stuff
And Libertarians are all about the gold standard.
Both lies

[An̕on̢̡y͏m̢o̷͘u̡s No.14997604]

>>14997596
>only marxism can be socialism
Kys

[Anonymous No.14997610]

>>14997604
Marxists are statists, ya dip.

[Anonymous No.14997642]

>>14997595
>The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (English: /ˈnɑːtsi, ˈnætsi/),[6] was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945

kill yourself

[Anonymous No.14997673]

>>14997596
>people need the state to realise the value of gold

[A̴no̵̵̴̶ń҉ym͜ơùs No.14997680]

>>14996757
Moldbug or Hoppe would be as close as I can think. I don't know very much about Schmitt tho

[Anonymous No.14997694]

>>14997642
>I still trust liberal propaganda and deceptive political lies from eighty years ago
They had socialists in their country killed. They went to war the the USSR out of no provocation from Stalin. They’re the authoritarian version of the socdems of current Europe, not socialists.
Hope that clears things up for you

[Anonymous No.14997702]

>>14997673
Gold is ... shiny. Conducts electricity. But is too soft for most things. Not very valuable.

[Anonymous No.14997726]

>>14997584
at the moment, a london-based financial company

[Anonymous No.14997734]

god women are so weak and inferior

[Anonymous No.14997735]

>>14997693
fuck off infectoid

[Ańo͏̀nymo̕u̶s̡ No.14997736]

>>14997694
Natsoc Germany was very close to the USSR desu, you're making a mistake of thinking ideology more important than geopolitics. The Russian propaganda against fascism was more out of expedience than actual ideological opposition.

[Anonym̡ous̛ No.14997739]

>>14997680
>HOPPE is a NAZI, BRUH!
>SMASH PATRIARCHY!

[An̴o͜n̴̢͜y̛͟mo͝us̴͘ No.14997747]

Othmar Spann has books in English

[Anonymous No.14997769]

>>14997736
And you’re making a mistake in ignoring what I just wrote. I’m no fan of the Soviets, but the Nazis were not socialists. THEY KILLED SOCIALISTS. German socialists. Their goal wasn’t socialism but an imperial kind of liberalism. Closer to Bonapartism

[Anonym͢ous̴ No.14997781]

>>14997694
>historical facts and their interpretations determine economic logic

"A social system based on this natural position regarding the
assignment of property rights is, and will from now on be called
pure capitalist. And since its ideas can also be discerned as the
dominating ideas of private law, i.e., of the norms regulating relations between private persons, it might also be termed a pure
private law system. This system is based on the idea that to be
nonaggressive, claims to property must be backed by the “objective” fact of an act of original appropriation, of previous ownership,
or by a mutually beneficial contractual relationship. This relationship can either be a deliberate cooperation between property owners or the deliberate transfer of property titles from one owner to
another. If this system is altered and instead a policy is instituted
that assigns rights of exclusive control over scarce means, however
partial, to persons or groups of persons that can point neither to
an act of previous usership of the things concerned, nor to a contractual relation with some previous user-owner, then this will be
called (partial) socialism. "

Hope that cleared it for ya

[Anonymous No.14997791]

>>14997781
>Trust the winners to write the accurate history

[Anonymous No.14997797]

>>14997781
retard

[Anony͘m̧ous No.14997799]

>>14997769
>an imperial kind of liberalism

[Anony͟mo͜us No.14997826]

>>14997791
The winners of what? Hans-Hermann Hoppe's family got assraped by socialists when they came into power. They took enormous amounts of land and wealth and never gave it back. Socialism killed millions and never went out of fashion. To this very day, you have hordes of millenials thinking Bernie Sanders is the coolest mf ever. Bernie Sanders. In America. The supposedly infernal kingdom of capitalism

[Anonymous No.14998012]

>>14997799
>>14997826
>Still slaves to liberal mislabeling propaganda
Is it too late to teach you the truth?

[Anonymous No.14998267]

For pretty basic introductions, I've heard good things about Kallistos Ware's books, like The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way. I've read Ladder of Divine Ascent by Climacus, and that is a very good introduction to monasticism and a lot of Orthodox spirituality. Sayings of the Desert Fathers is quite good, and you can find a lot of Seraphim Rose's writings online, and those are also good.

[Ą͟n̢o̡n̶̷̷ymo͢u͏s̷ No.14998272]

>>14998012
>you don't get it mah, the neo-liberal imperial, capitalist burgeous white power structure is why I don't have a job

[Anonymous No.14998283]

>>14998012
>The Nazi Party was a liberal one
jfc

[Anonymous No.14998336]

>>14997769
The ussr and most socialist states have killed other socialists if they're the wrong type of socialist.

[A̡̛n̴on͘̕ỳ̧m͞o̕͠us No.14998341]

Thomas Sowell

[Anonymous No.14998586]

>>14996775
>>14996788
>>14996924
wth???

[Anonymous No.14998612]

>>14996757
Jaime Guzman obviously. He was a schmittian, conservative catholic and a major advisor to Pinochet. Note that I staunchly oppose economic liberalism and liberalism in general, so I believe you will always need some mental gymnastics to reconcile Nietzsche and liberalism of any kind. It’s not impossible though.

[A̡̢n͘͠on̸͘ym͏oưs̛͘ No.14998614]

>Space is power: der Raum ist die Macht, as the theorist of political theology Carl Schmitt put it, and boundaries are how humans shape their space and defy the erosions of time: “space is paradise; time is hell. Boundaries are magic.”

Private property is the key to all of this. Spatial division made visible keeping the entropy at bay.

[Anonymous No.14998638]

>>14997736
For the love of God open a history book... the nazis pioneered new public management and are closer to an early form of neoliberalism (which is absolutely not anti-state, as most libertarians would agree). It’s all in the propaganda, laws, policies, theories that the nazis devised.

You obviously lack this knowledge, so start with Ian Kershaw and until then refrain from speaking on this subject.

[Anonymous No.14998763]

>>14998272
I have a job. Or the job has me. But I’ll take that as a yes, it is too late to teach you anything that doesn’t fit your programming.

>>14998283
Authoritarian and capitalist. Not your “free market” variety. You the guy insisting they were socialists? This is just wrong

>>14998336
And you still don’t get it? The Soviets were the capitalists. In China we have the capitalist state overseeing their pseudo-oligarchy, in Europe you have a well taxed oligarchy, in the US you have the post office and social security. They’re all states and they’re all practicing different levels of “mixed economy” capitalism. IE not socialism

[Anon͘ym͜ous No.14999005]

As others have said, it would be a contradiction. The simple version is that the economy, as a form of power in itself, is relatively insignificant. From the perspective of the state the economy should form naturally as a mode of being, as Epictetus stated: "Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants." This stands not only in opposition to the type of material wealth but that of mendicity and welfare. In the transitional state there is no difference between the beggar and the king - the law of Odysseus. Otherwise, the relation of the Roman and his triumphal arches, the spoils of war are contained in the coffers dedicated to the victorious and those who were lost to the war.

In the same way, a sacrifice of domestic wealth equal to the plunder can be seen in the arches of triumph, the relief adorned with the gold its heroes had taken. In contrast, the modern form of dedication to sacrifice is stripped bare, stone deprived of its wealth - as if rearming against its own historical events. Our monuments appear as bunkers and trenches against metaphysical laws, 'places unworthy even of death'. There is no wealth to be given to the dead, and the domestic territory has nothing left to sacrifice.

At the extreme, and this is my own view, the reduction of life to economic analysis suggests the death of economy, of wealth. One cannot dissect that which is still living, although we have come to the point where the scientific mind is certain it must resolve this contradiction. The practise of medicine needs cadavers to advance the knowledge of the body, and the cameralist needs shortages in order to distribute forms of wealth that persist beyond death. If modernity is to be conceived as a single form, a unified type of civilisation, then it must have an overriding law. From a technological perspective, what the technician perceives, there will always be shortages, a state of self-attrition. The economy is thus a kantian device, a setting and determination of limits to guarantee ideal logistics for the technological form to dig itself further into the earth. Its single law, and essentially it is wealth that is the economic state of exception in the modern era - a problem which forces the secular ennui of the inescapable.

A sense of wealth can never be complete for a people without any sense of being. It is often said that capitalism or communism causes degeneracy, but this is backwards thinking. It is the placelessness and very lack of dominion which completes itself, formed of the beginning. Diverse races and transitional laws develop only because they were the formative law, and no economic thinking can ever resolve this issue. The social and economic contracts must include all of humanity or reserve sections of the planet as a state of nature. The land is appropriated into misanthropy, and this only strengthens the facelessness, but also its humanity.

[Anony̨mo̷us No.14999013]

>>14999005
In scientific terms this is the process of schismogenesis, or ossification. Facing death, the social body must either produce new material or harden what already exists. Yet, it is at this point of self-awareness that some form of death already occurs. The vitality of the political form is lost, life no longer struggles with life, only itself. Schopenhauer's cripple riding the giant in a war with the leviathan.

Returning to Schmitt's position, the economy can be understood in its relation to romanticism, as the form of being in political opposition. It is at this point, in 1848, that the new bourgeoisie can no longer stand as a revolutionary agent, as a total opposition to the ancien regime - and so the new political body begins to set its own limits. What was the defeat of the old regime is now the encounter of political theology within economic constraints, and what is commonly understood as class struggle is really only a reconciliation of being, as a single type of man beyond the appearance of economic, political, industrial, or even theological character. What stands above this formation is the modern constitution itself, the metaphysical fluids which give rise to the character. 1789 is the Katechon for the bourgeoisie, and it was here that the new conservatives set themselves against the workers.

This history places us in a difficult position, because at once it was the monarchists - albeit in a decrepit state - who established the very political formations that liberalism would later take over as military installations. A type of domestic positioning in the aftermath of devastating wars of theological attrition. This is the contradiction that liberalism found itself in, the class struggle was essentially a return of the repressed of their own intervention against the cameralism of the monarchies. There is a great irony here as well, in the libertarian return to economic utopianism formed of monarchistic power - absolute economy as a Western reaction to marxism, but even less formalist. Cameralist jesters can only understand tragicomic tyranny. 1916 continues until it reaches its cosmic event, predetermined by material rationalisations.

In this fantasizing we see how economic rationalism is really only the final form of scientific simulacra - an occasionalism of the bourgeoisie who must see all complexity as a compliment to its simple laws. If the revolutionary spirit is good in itself then it need only be situated within the modern sense of being. What communists could never figure out was this relation to being that was perfected in the romantic aesthetics, and paradoxically only realised this once the slave state of Russia reimagined itself through industrial production of the modern type. An entire state dedicated to the aesthetic form of the machine and the elimination of the past.

[Anonymous No.14999036]

wat book uy like?

[Anonym҉o̵us No.14999037]

>>14999013
It is here that we can situate Austrian economics. It is essentially an attempt to return to the romanticism of economics after its defeat, hence its qualities of pure rationalism. Its function is the same, an elimination of the political sphere, and yet somehow it fails to recognise that this was the modern project all along. What Schmitt attempted was a continuation of politics within the modern means of being, after its death, and this contradicts the purely economic position which can only understand politics as a negation. Strangely, it is the economic position that keeps the dead politic alive: it comes to struggle only with death because it has descended into dead territory, and so cannot imagine anything else.

As form the economy eliminates its own sense of itself as shapes and figures, it is an accumulation through destruction - the exchange of only that which can never be exchanged. The communist understands being as the human finding freedom as he is crushed into mathematical shapes by the industrial process. The liberal views this as a necessary distancing effect, as merely the means of its guarantee of its security and liberty for all beings - thus its insistence on economic determination while never questioing the industrial process through which it is mobilised. The world is itself a type to be leveled, and so too the fulcrum that leverages its weights for measure.

It is in this that we see the unifying power of work, even in its tortuous forms. Man eliminates all quality from himself that is not equivalent to the leveling of earth processes. He is his own force measurement, and what resides in the territory of Satanic mills is his defeat of Kantian limits. The entire world is pounded flat beneath the greatest drop forge, welding together what the mills of heaven had taken so long to destroy.

The bourgeois position of economy eliminates this perspective and seeks a return to the political romanticism of dead aesthetics. An impossibility. Thus we see the return of technology as a monstrous form defeating all economic reason and material. The economists appear incapable of reconciling with this shift, turning towards a deep pessimism and irrationality in a desperate attempt to salvage their relation to being.

All that remains is dead labour, but as its metaphysical type: brutalism erased the sacrifices of worker attrition from the face of the earth, and then the bourgeoisie reappeared in its coffers as the war became total. The eyes of the economic mind appear unpainted, as in the minor figures hidden in monuments of ruin.

https://youtu.be/Dn4qjTVT4j8
https://youtu.be/6ys1Tz4albw

[Anonymous No.14999110]

>>14996757
If you actually read Hayek you'll realise he is actually already basically a schmittian, or at least heavily indebted to him.

Renato Cristi (F. R. Cristi) has written about this, there's an article on JSTOR.

The point of Hayekian market theory is that the human subjects have to be submissive and accepting of the logic of the price-system, because the market aggregates dispersed knowledge in a manner no other symbolic system can. Humans have to give up their ideas of rationality and accept that the market knows best.

Reading any Hayek (or Von Mises, or Buchanan, Stigler, Friedman if you read between the lines) you'll see it all operates according to a Schmittian logic.

Of course, if you ever actually read anything, you wouldn't be interested in Austrian economics.

[Anonymous No.15000028]

Boomping

[Anonymous No.15000613]

>>14996757
Send the economists to labor camps.

[Anonymous No.15000741]

>>14997694
>i get to define this word even when it has and is clearly being used in a broader way
fuck off we can plainly see you're wrong

[Anonymous No.15001068]

>>14996757
Go back to 2015

[A҉̸n͘͝onỳ̧m͜o͏us͘̕ No.15001324]

>>15000741
When the term red is used to describe half the colors in the rainbow, and there’s an already established tradition to not do that, it does indeed make me right. Red is red is red.

[Anonymous No.15001810]

Is there a transgender theory of Schmitt's philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15001817]

what happens if I lean on the door?

[Anonymous No.15002305]

>>14996757
The more I look the less pretty she gets. She's probably a roastie. That is if she isn't a slav

[Anonymous No.15002314]

>>15001810
NRx

[Anonymous No.15003209]

>>15002305
no ass and not tits. She's got nothing there

[Anonymous No.15003210]

>>14996788
She lives on my metro station, she always buys coffee with cream and zefirs

[Anonymous No.15004546]

>>15003210
o realy

[Anonymous No.15004567]

>>15003210
>she always buys coffee with cream
what if one day she wanted coffee without cream and they said "sorry, we are out of cream, but we do have milk, would you like coffee without milk?" hahaha wouldn't that be a funny and hegelian thing to say hahahahaha right guys

[Anonymous No.15005509]

>>15004567
Woah